Breaking the cycle of violence needs a different intelligence

DAY by day graphic images of civilians bearing the brunt of
Israel's military offensive in the Gaza Strip sear the world's
conscience. On Tuesday, 43 people were killed when a tank of the
Israeli Defence Forces fired on a school run by the United Nations
in Jabaliya, where Palestinian families were sheltering from the
fighting that has raged since the offensive started on December
27.

What must the Israeli soldier who fired that shell be feeling as
the consequences of that action sink in? The Israeli Army has
killed more than 700 Palestinians and injured some 3000 in just two
weeks. Some of the body bags carried from the rubble in Gaza are
heart-wrenchingly small.

Harder to photograph, but just as real, is the terror of a
million Israeli civilians living under the constant threat of
rocket and mortar attack by the Hamas militant movement. On
December 24, five days after Hamas had declared the previous
ceasefire dead, the militants rained at least 60 rockets and 40
mortar shells on Israeli cities, describing it as the "first
message" of a sustained military campaign.

Hamas is a very different beast to the old Palestine Liberation
Organisation headed by Yasser Arafat. The PLO also used violence,
but it was supported mainly by secular Ba'athist regimes of the
Arab world. Hamas retains some of those links but frames the
Palestinian struggle as part of a violent pan-Islamic jihad against
Jews, a struggle it says is justified in the Koran. It also has
close links with non-Arab but Islamist-ruled Iran, which uses its
influence to fuel violence on Israel's borders.

All of this is bad news for prospects for peace in the Middle
East. Diplomatic momentum for ending the hostilities has been
building as casualties rise and efforts to deliver humanitarian aid
to Gaza's .5 million civilians are impeded. The resolution for an
immediate ceasefire and Israeli troop withdrawal agreed yesterday
by the United Nations Security Council is welcome. If agreed to by
Israel and Hamas it could provide not only a circuit breaker but
the opportunity for a fresh start.

The best ceasefires engage combatants in a joint enterprise in
which trust develops on the ground. Sadly, the chances of that
happening in this case are dim. Trust is non-existent between
Israel and Hamas, and it is also in short supply in the broader
Middle East. The UN resolution lacks the full support of the United
States, which abstained.

Yesterday, the Damascus-based deputy head of Hamas's political
bureau, Mousa Abu Marzouq, told Al Jazeera Television that his
organisation would not stop the rockets. He hinted that any
agreement to do so would require Israel to lift its economic
blockade of Gaza, something Israel is reluctant to do. In the
absence of a ceasefire, Israel could decide to reoccupy part of
Gaza for the foreseeable future, perhaps hoping that the moderate
Fatah faction will regain control and restore coherence on the
Palestinian side of the negotiating table. The alternative -
leaving an unrepentant Hamas in charge and still firing rockets -
would call into question the whole point of a war that already has
its domestic critics.

Such are the complex considerations that need to be resolved
before the peace process can get back on the rails. Nation states
have the right to respond when their sovereign territory is
attacked, as Israel's has been. But in these times of asymmetric
war waged by non-state actors, retaliation must be selective lest
the bloodshed becomes part of the militants' recruitment drive and
strategy of attrition. Israel's leadership, which over the years
has included many generals, believes that on this occasion, using
force was the wise and responsible course. Time will tell if it was
right, or poured fuel on the flames.

In the meantime, a new American administration will soon be in
place, bringing the energy and intelligence of the president-elect,
Barack Obama, to bear on this intractable problem. He and his
secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, will need to work on the
matter from day one if they are to have a hope of making a
difference in their first four-year term.

The Israeli invasion of Gaza is a reminder of how war destroys
not just people and buildings, but faith in the idea of peace. For
the people of the Middle East that is the tragedy. Those advocating
violence are in the ascendant. Fresh ideas from Washington are
needed if the cycle of violence is to be broken.

Incoming from the war of ideas

THE public intellectual lives a fragile existence. Sitting atop
lonely mountains of opinion, many dare not look down for fear of
falling.

Keith Windschuttle, the historian and Quadrant editor,
fell victim to the same sort of sting his magazine's foundation
editor James McAuley perpetrated in 1944 to prick the pomposity of
a poetic rival with the poetry of the fictional Ern Malley.

Mr Windschuttle published an elaborate hoax in the latest issue
and its unveiling brings merriment to the often po-faced war of
ideas. The article, ostensibly concerning CSIRO's gene experiments,
was fiction from beginning to end, including its author and
footnotes. But it impressed Mr Windschuttle. An intellectual engine
during the Howard years, he stands accused of being an editor who
failed to exhibit the same ferocious zeal for fact-checking he
brought to bear on fellow historians who wandered before his
crosshairs.

1231004282532-smh.com.auhttp://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/breaking-the-cycle-of-violence-needs-a-different-intelligence/2009/01/09/1231004282532.htmlsmh.com.auSydney Morning Herald2009-01-10Breaking the cycle of violence needs a different intelligenceOpinionOpinionEditorial